Position of the Law Regarding the Requirement of Consent of the Attorney General Before Garnishee Proceedings Can Lie Against Any Government

CASE TITLE: CBN v. OCHIFE & ORS (2025) LPELR-80220(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH JANUARY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on garnishee proceedings.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

The first Respondent commenced an action against the second to the fourth Respondents at the Federal High Court, Abuja, and was awarded damages in the sum of N50 Million. By a motion ex-parte, the first Respondent commenced garnishee proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja for the enforcement of the payment of the judgment sum, by seeking to attach sums standing to the credit of the second to the fourth Respondents in their accounts with the Appellant under the Treasury Single Accounts (TSA) policy. The case of the first Respondent on the application was that the second to the fourth Respondents maintained accounts with the Appellant under the Treasury Single Accounts policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria and that the accounts possessed sums in excess of the judgment sum.

The trial Court granted the Order of Garnishee Nisi and directed that the Appellant attach the funds in the accounts of the second to the fourth Respondents in its possession to the tune of N50 Million and to pay the judgment sum to the Registrar of the Court or attend Court on the next adjourned date, to either show cause why it should not be ordered to pay the money by the making of the Garnishee Order Absolute. Appellant filed an affidavit to show cause and wherein it deposed that it did not maintain any account(s) in the names of the second to the fourth Respondents and that it was thus unable to comply with the Garnishee Order Nisi to attach and pay the judgment sum.

On the next adjourned date, Appellant was absent from Court and was not represented by Counsel. The first Respondent urged the Court to disregard the affidavit to show cause as same was filed out of time and did not deny or oppose the material aspects of the affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte, and to proceed to make the Garnishee Order Absolute. The Court obliged the first respondent.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the ruling and it appealed to the Court of Appeal. The latter invoked its power under Section 15 of CA Act and decided against the appellant. Appellant thereafter appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The issue identified for determination was:

Whether the lower Court was right or justified in relying on Section 124 of the Evidence Act, 2011 to reject the Appellant’s denial of having accounts in the judgment debtors’ names and to hold that the Judgment Debtors are MDAs (Ministries, Department and Agencies) whose account are with the Appellant under the Federal Government Treasury Single Account Policy.

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- RESPONDENT TO AN APPEAL: Role of a respondent to an appeal; whether a respondent who has not cross-appealed can attack a judgment
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION: Doctrine of supremacy of the Constitution
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- SEPARATION OF POWERS: Principle of separation of powers
• COURT- DUTY OF JUDGE: The role of a Judge in our adversarial system of justice
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF: Position of the law where the evidence of a claimant is as good as that of a defendant
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden of proof in a garnishee proceeding
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- PERVERSE DECISION: What is required of an appellate court when faced with a perverse judgment
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- ORDER OF COURT: Whether a court can make an order in vain
• JURISDICTION- PROCEDURAL/SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION: Distinction between procedural and substantive jurisdiction
• JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT: Whether the Supreme Court can entertain an appeal against a decision given by the Court of Appeal without jurisdiction
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: Whether the issue of failure to obtain the fiat/consent of the Attorney General of the Federation before commencing garnishee proceedings can be raised for the first time on appeal
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: Nature and procedure of garnishee proceedings
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: When can it be said that there is a dispute of liability by a garnishee which requires further enquiry under Section 87 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: Position of the law where a garnishee disputes liability; duty of Court thereof
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: Whether the Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer within the meaning of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act as to require the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation before garnishee proceedings can be commenced against it
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: Position of the law regarding the requirement of consent of the Attorney General before garnishee proceedings can lie against any government and the constitutionality of same
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: Duty of judgment creditor to conduct diligent search to ascertain the third parties in possession of funds belonging to the judgment debtor before commencing garnishee proceedings
• TORT- VICARIOUS LIABILITY: Whether the Nigeria Police may be vicariously liable for the actions of the officers of the Nigeria Police; persons through whom such action can be prosecuted

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol